Avoid This Movie: A Review of "Water Bandit"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cyrus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Movie Review
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a negative critique of a recent James Bond film, which is described as poorly executed and lacking the traditional elements that define the franchise. The plot, involving a villain attempting to steal water in Bolivia, is deemed simplistic and unengaging. Critics highlight the absence of iconic gadgets, humor, and character development, leading to confusion among viewers about character identities and motivations. The film is compared unfavorably to earlier Bond movies, particularly "Casino Royale" and "Goldeneye," with many participants expressing disappointment in the direction of the franchise. The new portrayal of Bond, characterized as gritty and realistic, is seen as a departure from the charm and sophistication typically associated with the character. Overall, the consensus is that the film fails to deliver the excitement and intrigue expected from a Bond movie, prompting recommendations to avoid it or watch it for free.
Cyrus
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
17
Dont watch it. It was horrible. I mean HOR-RI-BLE.

This bad guy is trying to steal all the water in bolivia. Yep, that's the plot. It's that stupid. He just wants to steal some water and sell it back for profit. Plus there is random action (I mean random) and characters just come in leaving me asking who the hell is that?

Oh, and he has a cell phone that he uses to take pictures of peoples faces 500 feet away with 'super magic zoom that stabilizes itself perfectly'. It's total BS.

That was the only 'gadget' the whole movie. No montepenny. No Q. No funny lines.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I haven't seen the recent one, and I don't plan to. That's because I've never seen a Bond movie I like, so I stopped going a long, long time ago. It's just not my thing.

But I think I'm the only person on Earth who doesn't like Bond movies in general.
 
I love James Bond! I plan to see the newest one. :biggrin:
 
mcknia07 said:
I love James Bond! I plan to see the newest one. :biggrin:

Don't waste your money. Don't say I didn't warn you.

He drives to a random airport in the middle of the desert where there is some spanish local (the only guy around by the way) and asks to borrow his airplane (an old DC-3). So he leaves his range rover behind as a down payment and promises to pay him when he gets back. So he just flies away in this old junker airplane.

At least the old bond jumped out of one airplane and into another airplane and pulled up before crashing into a mountain. Yes, that was BS but it was something bond would do. This was like watching a really bad bourne movie.

The bad guy isn't stealing a nuclear submarine, or building a fancy space station from rio brasil or trying to rob all the gold in fort knox. He's just stealing natural resources (water) and making the government buy its own water back for profit. Wooooooooooooooo...
 
Thanks Cy, you just ruined it for me. Well, yeah, looks like I'm not going to watch it now. The best James Bond, I thought was either...Pierce Brosnan or Sean Connery.
 
mcknia07 said:
Thanks Cy, you just ruined it for me. Well, yeah, looks like I'm not going to watch it now. The best James Bond, I thought was either...Pierce Brosnan or Sean Connery.

Thats the thing. You will sit there watching the movie going .....huh? The whole time. Trust me. You'll understand when you see it. Its either.....huh? or ......okay...

Casino Royale was wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better than this piece of crap. And I didn't like Casino Royale that much.

Its a really bad bourne movie. That's the only way I can describe it.


TRUST ME. Watch it bootleg online for free. SAVE YOUR MONEY!
 
Casino Royale was the one where he must defeat the bad guy at any price but they can only afford $10M stake. What's that, the paint job on a fighter?

Goldeneye was the last good bond, proper bad guy, proper lair, proper car chase and gadets.
 
Last edited:
The movie has some merit as a self-contained original movie if the expectations of Connery and Brosnan are removed.
 
mgb_phys said:
Goldeneye was the last good bond, proper bad guy, proper lair, proper car chase and gadets.

Absolutely. Although, I didn't think Casino Royal was all that bad but it certainly wasn't no Golden eye.
 
  • #10
Aside from Sean Connery's 007's, there was only one other good one, Goldeneye. Casino Royale was ridiculous, I'm sorry, but I just can't stand James Bond being a blondie. It also reminds me of Roger Moore who COMPLETELY sucked.
 
  • #11
Casino Royale was like a ninety minute commercial for The Poker Channel.

Despite the fact I didn't like it, though, I do like Daniel Craig. The character he plays seems more realistically like what that sort of guy would be. Less debonair gentleman, more cut your balls off.
⚛​
 
  • #12
I stopped after, Pierce Brosnan stopped being 007.

I find it odd that James bond now has blond hair...something odd about that.
 
  • #13
Whaaaaaaaa?/


Casino Royale was the best Bond of the last 30 years. Come on, all the Bonds with Brosnan and the Bonds in the 80s were cheesey as all hell.
 
  • #14
gravenewworld said:
Whaaaaaaaa?/


Casino Royale was the best Bond of the last 30 years. Come on, all the Bonds with Brosnan and the Bonds in the 80s were cheesey as all hell.

Oh, wait till you see this stinker.

Casino Royale was....ehhhhhh...
 
  • #15
http://www.hulu.com/watch/26379/casino-royale-1967

Free Casino Royale.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
It's been pretty much downhill since Dr. No. I will watch this one but with no expectations of entertainment. My daughter works at the megaplex so we get a discount.

Snyder, Jimmy Snyder. I have a license to drive.
 
  • #17
In the best Bond movies Roger was James. Those had good evil plans, the best theme (A view to a kill) and the best imaginary gadgets like (VLR) visible laser rifle. In addition there was the best humor which is really important because it shows Bonds superiority to his adversaries.
 
  • #18
I went to see the new Bond film last week and I thought it was pretty good. I mean, not as good as Casino Royale, but it was still entertaining.
 
  • #19
Cyrus said:
Casino Royale was wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better than this piece of crap.

I have seen Casino this week. Zero. Absolute Zero. Are you telling me there is something below absolute zero? That's crackpottery and we don't like it at PF.

It wasn't Bond movie at all.
 
  • #20
The director tried hard to break with the stereotypes of the previous 007 films (no - Martinis, shaken not stirred; no - the name's Bond; James Bond and no bevy of beautiful women falling into bed with the hero; no sardonic humour and no sci fi gadgetry.

The director succeeded beyond his wildest dreams to the extent the only thing this film has in common with the Bond franchise is the agent's name happens to be Bond although film goers would be excused for thinking it was Bourne :rolleyes:
 
  • #21
Art said:
The director tried hard to break with the stereotypes of the previous 007 films (no - Martinis, shaken not stirred; no - the name's Bond; James Bond and no bevy of beautiful women falling into bed with the hero; no sardonic humour and no sci fi gadgetry.

The director succeeded beyond his wildest dreams to the extent the only thing this film has in common with the Bond franchise is the agent's name happens to be Bond

Exactly.

Name is Bond. Fake Bond.
 
  • #22
Cyrus said:
Dont watch it. It was horrible. I mean HOR-RI-BLE.

This bad guy is trying to steal all the water in bolivia. Yep, that's the plot. It's that stupid. He just wants to steal some water and sell it back for profit. Plus there is random action (I mean random) and characters just come in leaving me asking who the hell is that?

Oh, and he has a cell phone that he uses to take pictures of peoples faces 500 feet away with 'super magic zoom that stabilizes itself perfectly'. It's total BS.

That was the only 'gadget' the whole movie. No montepenny. No Q. No funny lines.

everyone has their own opinion. i happened to like it, weather you have a nice valid proof of how you felt.

so, i suggest if you have any remote interest in seeing it, just see if and form your own opinion.
 
  • #23
Well nobody would have EVER thought Cyrus would critique a movie...ya'know?
 
  • #24
Borek said:
Exactly.

Name is Bond. Fake Bond.

snort...:smile:
 
  • #25
I completely agree that this 'Bond movie' was horrible. It was a big dissapointment because I thought Casino Royale was very good. I was hoping it would only get better. I don't blame Craig, his script was just ***** and the plot was bad. You get introduced to too many random characters throughout the movie who have no development. The plot is similar to what you'd see in Pirates of the Caribean, uneccesarily confusing and just plain sucky. You should see how retarded the MI6 hideout is with the advanced finger computers. And the opera shoot scene. The fight scenes come out of nowhere and are resolved in a very short amount of time.

The parallels with Bourne hit home with me aswell. You get the whole everyone is chasing you and fast-panned action. After the movie I felt just like I did when I watched Bourne 2&3. It was definitely a blend of bad Borune and Die another day. And the ending is lame, you watch and think okaaay... Really, I would like to point out some good scenes to give the movie some watch-value but there were none. UGH


I think its safe to say I'm through with the Bond series. They were never that good to begin with, but they did have some classic titles - the last of which was Goldeneye. Its all become a pure market scheme now... videogames and dvds. The unfortunate part is they are making more money now than ever. I'm through with supporting them, and movies are heading downhill just like our 'music'. Someone needs to give the new guys a shot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
Is there any point to mentioning that my post contains SPOILERS?

For those who complain that it bore no resemblance to a James Bond film: you are right. That is because they have completely redefined the James Bond franchise. It's kind of like Nolan's version of Batman. It's meant to be "realistic." Gritty, down to earth, and visceral are also words that come to mind. Hence the relative mundanity of the plot. I'm not sure whether Cyrus' complaint was that the plot was mundane, or that it was stupid/nonsensical/pointless. Whatever you might say about it, I think that it was meant to be an example of the type of situation the intelligence agencies of the world's major powers might have to deal with in the present day, in the world's current political climate. It was certainly interesting to see the blunt depiction of the world's major powers' last ditch scramble for oil at any cost. Not to mention the not-so-subtle criticism of the U.S.'s actions on the world stage. Not the sort of thing you'd expect to see in a Bond film.

The problem with their new definition of a James Bond film is quite simply that it doesn't work. You can either have a James Bond movie, or you can have a "realistic" spy movie. These things are mutually exclusive. For if Bond is meant to be simply "a really good MI6 agent doing what MI6 agents do," then we are left wondering why he's driving around in an Aston Martin in the first place. It's not as if the real MI6 can afford to provide one for each of its agents. To make this new definition work, the filmmakers would have to abandon ALL of the elements that typify a James Bond movie, as opposed to MOST of them. We accepted the outlandish elements and gadgets in previous Bond films because they were part and parcel of the Bond experience. It's much harder to accept them here.

It doesn't help that they've also completely redefined the character. The only elements that remain the same are his efficiency as a killer, his alcoholism, his sex drive, his seeming invincibility, and his ability to ultimately get the job done, no matter how unconventional the methods employed. Yet he seems to lack any of the charm and sophistication that the filmmakers would have us believe are still inherent to Bond. People around him act as though he's well-known to be this suave character with fine, expensive tastes, but he really doesn't portray himself that way (aside from the fact that's he's dressed nicely). He's described as a thug, a hired hitman, an assassin, a "blunt instrument." Those certainly seem closer to the mark when it comes to Craig's performance. This humourless Bond has a brooding intensity to him. He has issues -- emotional baggage. In light of these traits, it seems surprising that he's able to go to bed with so many women. Especially since I haven't had anything that comes even close to a remotely consistent answer from my female friends when it comes to the issue of whether Daniel Craig is, in fact, good-looking. They're all over the map.

I guess the summary of what I'm saying is that by drastically changing the Bond franchise, the filmmakers have unwittingly had us recalibrate our suspension-of-disbelief-o-meters to the point that it makes it difficult to accept the traditional James Bond elements in these films.
 
  • #27
Gee, Cyrus, thanks for ruining the WHOLE plot! :rolleyes: :biggrin:

I haven't really liked any of the recent Bond movies. I think they're just stretching too much to keep the "brand" alive, but without really maintaining the character.

I'll probably toss it onto my Netflix queue when it's on DVD. I'm not likely to have gotten to a theater to see it anyway.
 
  • #28
I liked this movie, though not as much as Casino Royale (though it did seem to pick up hours after Casino Royale ended).

I always disliked the complete absurdity of previous Bond movies, mainly the impossible gadgets and stunts. This movie, to me, had two "oh come on" moments, but I lived through them.

I do wish this movie had more dialogue between M and Bond. Perhaps we'll see that in the next one, since this basically wrapped up the loose ends of Casino Royale. Though it did leave "Quantum" wide open, and I'm sure we'll find out what that's all about in the next one.

Maybe then we'll have some insanely impossible plot that Bond can attempt to foil. Though I did like the general premise in this one, because how many times can you really have Bond try to stop the Armageddon? The evil plot behind Quantum of Solace is a little stretch on what will probably the next big global resource crisis.

Also, I like Bond as the hired assassin with the f-ed up mind rather than the pretty boy who never seems to get hurt. I watched the Pierce Brosnan films over the summer and the worst he seemed to get out of the entire thing was a messed up (dislocated?) shoulder.

It'll be interesting to see what they do with the next one, but I'm sure they're not going to go back to the gadgets riddled, nuclear bomb disarming bond of the last franchises.
 
  • #29
Also, completely aside from the plot of the movie, the cinematography was fantastic.
 
  • #30
I liked Casino Royal...

It was no Goldeneye or License to Kill, but it was good.

Casino Royale was, without a doubt, better than the last Brosnan film. That film got too ridiculous for me in terms of plot and used WAY to much CGI. At least Casino Royale fixed that.
 
  • #31
chasely said:
It'll be interesting to see what they do with the next one, but I'm sure they're not going to go back to the gadgets riddled, nuclear bomb disarming bond of the last franchises.

Then they should just pack it in and create a new character. To leave out the whole core of the movies and character and still call it a James Bond movie is ridiculous. Bond films are SUPPOSED to have impossible gadgets and stunts...that's what makes them so fun to watch!
 
  • #32
chasely said:
Also, completely aside from the plot of the movie, the cinematography was fantastic.

Honestly, what was 'fantastic' about the cinematography. I saw nothing special, at all.

The shot of him driving in the car with the camera mounted in the front drives side looking back was straight from a 70s car chase movie. It was lousy in all respects.
 
  • #33
They can't stop making Bond movies until the franchise retakes its number 1 movie franchise record from the Harry Potter movies.
 
  • #34
Yeah, I have to agree with Moonbear... it's like false advertising. It's like cracking open a can of Coke and finding it's filled with New Cherry Limeade Sprite.

And wait! Moonbear, tell us if Daniel Craig is hot or creepy. Inquiring minds want to know.
⚛​
 
  • #35
Moonbear said:
Then they should just pack it in and create a new character. To leave out the whole core of the movies and character and still call it a James Bond movie is ridiculous. Bond films are SUPPOSED to have impossible gadgets and stunts...that's what makes them so fun to watch!

You have a point, though apparently these latest films are a closer portrayal of Fleming's Bond. That's just what I hear, I haven't read the original novels.

However, since it looks like the movie has already profited the studio a cool $100 million dollars, I don't think they are going to stop making them anytime soon.
 
  • #36
Moonbear said:
To leave out the whole core of the movies and character and still call it a James Bond movie is ridiculous. Bond films are SUPPOSED to have impossible gadgets and stunts...

Exactly. No Bond stuff, no Bond movie.
 
  • #37
chasely said:
Also, I like Bond as the hired assassin with the f-ed up mind rather than the pretty boy who never seems to get hurt. I watched the Pierce Brosnan films over the summer and the worst he seemed to get out of the entire thing was a messed up (dislocated?) shoulder.

Get over it. In this latest movie, Craig's Bond falls out of a plane, barely opening his chute in time, and in the next scene his shirt is still tucked in, his cufflinks are still on, and he still has his suit jacket. Sure, they paid close attention to make sure that people were appropriately battered and bloodied in this movie, but to argue that it was completely realistic and that there no examples of "invincible Bond" is wrong. In fact, "takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'" was almost a theme of Bond in this movie, to the point of absurdity (no more or less so than most action movies nowadays, but there you have it). I mean, if they were being completely realistic, Bond would have been dead in the first few minutes. There are only so many glass panes that one can get smashed through. If anything they went to the opposite extreme. This Bond gets injured far too much for it to be believable. Brosnan may not have had a scratch on him, but having Craig go through what should have killed him three times over without any consequences whatsoever, and having him ACT as though he didn't have a scratch on him is not much of an improvement.

I think Brosnan did an awesome job as Bond, even if the movies he was in weren't that great, and tended to get progessively worse.
 
  • #38
cepheid said:
Get over it. In this latest movie, Craig's Bond falls out of a plane, barely opening his chute in time, and in the next scene his shirt is still tucked in, his cufflinks are still on, and he still has his suit jacket. Sure, they paid close attention to make sure that people were appropriately battered and bloodied in this movie, but to argue that it was completely realistic and that there no examples of "invincible Bond" is wrong. In fact, "takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'" was almost a theme of Bond in this movie, to the point of absurdity (no more or less so than most action movies nowadays, but there you have it). I mean, if they were being completely realistic, Bond would have been dead in the first few minutes. There are only so many glass panes that one can get smashed through. If anything they went to the opposite extreme. This Bond gets injured far too much for it to be believable. Brosnan may not have had a scratch on him, but having Craig go through what should have killed him three times over without any consequences whatsoever, and having him ACT as though he didn't have a scratch on him is not much of an improvement.

I think Brosnan did an awesome job as Bond, even if the movies he was in weren't that great, and tended to get progessively worse.

Completely agree with you, the scene you mention was one of those "oh come on moments" for me.

Of course, if movies were to get realistic, good guys would die in about two minutes. Either that or these bad guys are all blind and have really bad aim.

Still liked the movie though:approve:
 
  • #39
The realistic Bond movie
Bond spends the morning listening in on mobile phone calls.
Then just before his compulsory 'sexism in the workplace' seminar he is issued with a zone 1 travel card by Q.
Heads to the tube - and shoots a Brazilian tourist!
 
  • #40
If you like the Bourne series will you like the latest bond flick then?
 
  • #41
mgb_phys said:
The realistic Bond movie
Bond spends the morning listening in on mobile phone calls.
Then just before his compulsory 'sexism in the workplace' seminar he is issued with a zone 1 travel card by Q.
Heads to the tube - and shoots a Brazilian tourist!

Roll credits, here comes the cash for the studio!
 
  • #42
OrbitalPower said:
If you like the Bourne series will you like the latest bond flick then?

I liked both, so that's a "yes" from one person.
 
  • #43
OrbitalPower said:
If you like the Bourne series will you like the latest bond flick then?

No, it sucks. And I didnt care much for bourne 2 & 3 either. I thought they sucked too. Call me crazy, I like a movie that has a good plot and shots to it. I guess its too much to ask these days.
 
  • #44
Just saw it.

2/5.

The script was all over the place, and at times barely comprehensible. I had to read the wiki plot summary after I saw the movie to make sure I caught everything.



That being said, even though this new bond wasn't one of the best, the new portrayal of Bond is much better than before. Come on, invisible Aston Martens, watches with lasers, and bad guys throwing top hats that can cut off statue heads? The old Bonds were extremely cheesy. The newer Bonds are based more in reality and are much grittier.
 
  • #45
Here is a piece of advice for movie makers. If you want to make a spy movie make something people can believe. Don't make it about the character, make it about the mission. Have characters die or get captured. I don't care about the character. If you're doing a military operation its about completing your MISSION objective.

I'm really getting tired of this supermanlike bullsheet from spy movies. Its action action action, fight fight fight, run run run, fight more fight more, take out super moronic spy gadget.

Was there any point to bourne 2,3? No. None. For three movies he's trying to figure out who he is. Wow...that's some story. I'm on the edge of my seat. Oh wait, no. I wasnt. No one was. You just wanted to see mindless fight scenes.

The truth of the matter is, most spies don't do all this nonsense anyways. They recruit people to do the spying so they can cut and run if things go bad. Make a move about the interaction of a real spy trying to turn people to spy for him/her and pay them off, and the dynamic of that relationship.

Enough is enough. Spy movies suck. I'm sorry, they do. There all the sameeeeeeee olddddddd stupid plot over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

(Cue in ninjas on ropes to start fighting randomly)
 
  • #46
The point of franchises is to be exactly the same as the last one - people go because they know what to expect. It's like McDonalds.
 
  • #47
mgb_phys said:
The point of franchises is to be exactly the same as the last one - people go because they know what to expect. It's like McDonalds.


That is completely up to the artist (the director).



The new Batmans are much much different than the Batmans of the 80s and 90s.
 
  • #48
gravenewworld said:
The new Batmans are much much different than the Batmans of the 80s and 90s.
Batman is more like different interpretations of the same story.
When you get to Batman 27 - Batman and the wolfman against Dracula, it becomes a franchise!
 
  • #49
What was with that shaky camera work? It was worse than watching that garbage movie the Bourne Ultimatum...:rolleyes:
 
  • #50
http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/superinni/ANOTHER_WAY_TO_DIE_ALECIA_KEYS_JACK_WHITE.aspx

Even the theme song sucked.


Also, he didnt even walk and shoot the bullseye like in all the other bond movies until the very END of the movie. No...no...NO. He does that FIRST. then after a few mins comes the theme song.

Now compare that asc-crap to the CLASSIC bond theme songs of the past



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSc1n8ByDiE&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFMvGzpUEPU&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDitUVMMzE0&feature=related

Plus they always had these great animations.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pka0FczsOfo&feature=related
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top